CSIS Director Highlights How China Threat Differs From Russia’s

David Vigneault, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), prepares to appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (PROC), studying the intimidation campaign against Members of Parliament, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on June 13, 2023. Justin Tang/The Canadian Press

The foreign interference threats coming from China differ significantly from those from Russia or other countries, says the boss of Canada’s spy agency.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Director David Vigneault testified before the Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 13 and answered questions from MPs about the nature of the China threat.

In the midst of multiple controversies related to Chinese regime interference in Canada spurred by national security leaks in the media, some politicians have attempted to put the focus on other countries as well rather than squarely on China.

An NDP motion adopted by the House of Commons on May 31 called for a public inquiry into foreign interference from “all states, including, but not limited to, the actions of the Chinese, Indian, Iranian and Russian governments.”

Liberal MP Ryan Turnbull, in the context of the committee study of Beijing’s threats to MPs, asked Vigneault how those threats can compare to those coming from Moscow.

“If you had to compare the foreign interference attempts of Russia and China, who attempts to interfere more, and how did their tactics differ?” asked Turnbull.

Vigneault said there are “fundamental” differences between how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Russia operate.

“The most fundamental one is the fact that since the arrival of Xi Jinping as the president of China, and as the leader of the Communist Party, we have seen a growth of the ability and the budgets of the United Front Work Department,” said Vigneault.

The head of CSIS said the United Front’s main goal is to interfere in other countries’ affairs and it’s been present in Canada for a “long, long time.”

Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs David Morrison told the committee earlier that day that according to his information, the United Front has been in Canada in one form or another since the 1950s.

At least two organizations investigated by the RCMP as suspected of hosting Chinese police stations formally fall under the authority of the United Front.

Montreal-area Chinese immigrant support organizations Centre Sino-Québec de la Rive-Sud and the Service à la famille chinoise du Grand Montréal are affiliated with the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office (OCAO) since at least 2016. The OCAO was moved under the control of the United Front in 2018. The organizations haven’t responded to requests for comment.

Vigneault remarked that Xi has referred to the United Front as the CCP’s “magic weapon.”

“This is one of the most significant difference between the PRC [People’s Republic of China] and other countries.”

Turnbull asked Vigneault whether he agreed that “Russia still presents a threat.”

“Russia has extremely advanced capabilities to engage in foreign interference activities. They’re doing the same thing on espionage,” said Vigneault.

But he said there are questions related to the intent behind Russia’s capabilities and what its specific objectives are. “And so sometimes Canada may not be the main objective,” he said.

Intelligence Law

Along with a dedicated state body directing foreign interference, the CCP also has other measures giving it an edge to pursue its interests abroad and engage in intelligence collection.

Liberal MP Sherry Romanado asked Vigneault how China’s National Intelligence Law adopted in 2017 has changed the threat landscape.

“Can you elaborate with this committee if this changed the posture with respect to intelligence gathering within CSIS?” she asked.

“Indeed, this was another significant milestone,” said Vigneault. “It essentially codified and publicized the fact that ... the PRC, the Communist Party, they saw everybody, every company, every citizen as someone who needed to support intelligence services.”

He said the PRC doesn’t care whether an individual has a foreign citizenship or has been living abroad for a few generations, the law is applied along the same standard. “They will be putting pressure on individuals to collaborate with the intelligence service if it was in their desire.”

The CSIS director said his agency took good note of that development and it has changed the way it conducts its investigations and analysis.

‘A-Team’

Former CSIS executive Dan Stanton shared similar information during his testimony before the House ethics committee on March 31.

He called the PRC the “A-Team” in foreign interference and said it probably poses the “most daunting threat” in that field.

MPs on the committee sought to obtain information on other actors, with NDP MP Matthew Green expressing concerns that “we may miss the broader picture.”

“I think we’re solely focused on China, because it is, as I said, the A-Team when it comes to foreign interference. There is absolutely no comparison in terms of scope and qualitative differences,” Stanton said.

Stanton, a 32-year CSIS veteran, said that foreign interference has eclipsed traditional espionage as a threat over the last 30 years.

“Why risk stealing another state’s secrets when you can influence and manipulate the targeted countries’ policymakers, you can get close to what we consider the soft underbelly of the state through our democratic institutions,” he said.

Canada has been embroiled in a Chinese interference controversy since media started reporting on leaked national security information in November.

The Liberal government has resisted calls from the opposition parties to hold a public inquiry in recent months, but softened its stance this week after special rapporteur David Johnston resigned on June 9.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had appointed former governor general Johnston in mid-March to review foreign interference and gave him the mandate to determine whether a public inquiry should be held.

Johnston recommended against it, which led to opposition parties passing a motion in the House asking for him to step down. Johnston initially resisted the call but relented a few days after amid fresh criticism about his and his top counsel’s potential conflict of interest.

Opposition parties have now begun discussions around the terms for an eventual public inquiry.